3 ms·
The corrections are just metadata, the RAW data is still there. This is true for both DNG and ARW (Sony). Dont know the other brands. The corrections can even l
by tobyhinloopen 2y ago
The corrections are just metadata, the RAW data is still there. This is true for both DNG and ARW (Sony). Dont know the other brands. The corrections can even look different based on what program you use to interpret them.
- buildbot 2y agoI don’t think that’s true in general. As a sibling comments points out, this is not true for some DNGs - for example, the output of an iPhone is in DNG, but with many, many transforms already baked in. A DNG might even be debayered already. GFX 100s II’s apply a transform to RAW data at iso 80, see: https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100-ii/the-reason-for-the-gfz-100-ii-iso-80-unusually-good-read-noise/ https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100-ii/the-reason-for-the-gfz-10... I don’t know much about ARW, but I do know that they offer a lossy compressed format - so it’s not just straight off the sensor integer values in that case either.
- spookie 2y agodamn, that is a quirk that would've led me pulling my hair out if I worked with those.
- tobyhinloopen 2y agoAt least it's only at ISO 80, where noise would be minimal anyway (: I rarely use noise reduction because I don't like the artificial cleanliness of the result.
- tobyhinloopen 2y agoOkay true, but that's not the format's fault (: The GFX 100s II thing is very interesting. Totally not what I would expect from such a "high end" camera.